Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Chinese Defence Industry

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:51 am

    "Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users. During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata. Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14. “The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

    Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams. … Why don’t buyers consider Chinese tanks that have well-developed technologies and equipment as well as much-lower prices?” The lower price of the VT series is specifically designed to target the needs of militaries in developing countries. Norinco also notes that in comparison to its Russian competition, it also can offer a much wider array of products. “Currently, Russia has only one new tank that is available for export – the T-90S. In contrast, we have the low-end VT-2, middle-end VT-1 as well as the high-end VT-4, covering the requirements of almost every client in the international market,” the company said. The VT-2’s two major selling points are that it uses proven technology and that it is cheap. The VT-4, however, allegedly features the world’s latest tank warfare technology and can be compared to any modern third generation main battle tank like the U.S. M1A2 Abrams or Germany’s Leopard 2A6, according to Feng Yibai, chief designer of the VT-4.

    The VT-4′s “main gun is a 125 m smoothbore that can fire various shells, including kinetic energy penetrators and high-explosive anti-tank warheads. It can fire anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of 5,000 meters,” China Daily notes. Also, the VT-4 “has an advanced fire-control instrument, a new-type active protection system and a state-of-the-art, fully automatic transmission device,” he said. “In addition, the inter-unit network connects commanders of tanks and armored vehicles under a combat group, enabling them to share battlefield data in a real-time manner,” the WeChat article summarizes. Any speculative comparison between the leading Chinese and Russian main battle tanks is in many ways premature and nonsensical; it has to be discarded as a mere clever marketing ploy  to garner attention at this stage. Neither of the two tank programs have entered the mass-production phase yet and most of the current speculation is based on prototypes and the sparse public data available. Without rigorous testing it is virtually impossible to verify whether the VT-4 does display superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems.

    China has traditionally relied heavily in the development of its indigenous tank force on Russian license-built technology and know-how. Judging from publicly available images, the T-14 appears to have made a clear break with older Soviet legacy tank designs, whereas the VT-4 very much looks like an improved version of the T-90s. This is as far as any sensible unclassified analysis should go at this juncture. According to the United Nations’ Register of Conventional Arms, China exported a total of 461 tanks from 1992 to 2013, whereas Russia sold 1,297 tanks during the same period. The United States is still the leading tank export of the world with 5,511 sales, followed by Germany with 2,680 exported armored fighting vehicles."
    Source: thediplomat.com

    Even tho i admire Chinese advance in all areas of technology including military fields, i find this claim quite funny. First of all i am quite sure they never got chance to observe all systems on Armata so its arguable if they can make even statements like this at all. I remember when they claimed how J10A is on pair with "all 4th gen fighters", later it appeared its somewhat comparable to F16 Block 40. Tho ill give them, this tank looks promising for export.
    avatar
    max steel

    Posts : 2969
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  max steel on Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:07 pm

    Militarov wrote:[i]"Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users. During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata. Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14. “The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

    Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams.


    Oh please! Facts are that Armata has AESA radar, which makes it a node in a very complex battlefield structure, which unifies tactical link (platoon, company, battalion and brigade) to the informational grid and allows to make not only tactical but operational decisions.USSR/Russia always produced technology, in the fields that mattered, which was always on par or surpassed that of the nominal "West". Just look at the Air Defense, submarines, fighter aircraft and guided missiles. And then there is this "thingy" of Net Centric Warfare, which T-14 is part of.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:24 pm

    max steel wrote:
    Militarov wrote:[i]"Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users. During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata. Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14. “The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

    Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams.


    Oh please! Facts are that Armata has AESA radar, which makes it a node in a very complex battlefield structure, which unifies tactical link (platoon, company, battalion and brigade) to the informational grid and allows to make not only tactical but operational decisions.USSR/Russia always produced technology, in the fields that mattered, which was always on par or surpassed that of the nominal "West". Just look at the Air Defense, submarines, fighter aircraft and guided missiles. And then there is this "thingy" of Net Centric Warfare, which T-14 is part of.

    I call this a PR managament Very Happy
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4490
    Points : 4663
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sat Sep 05, 2015 6:49 pm

    max steel wrote:
    Militarov wrote:[i]"Last week, China Daily reported that China’s biggest developer and manufacturer of land armaments, China North Industries Group Corporation, is aggressively promoting its products on WeChat, a social networking app with more than 500 million users. During Norinco’s latest marketing drive on WeChat, the company claims that its VT-4 tank boasts superior automation, mobility, and fire-control systems to Russia’s T-14 Armata. Additionally, the article claims that the VT-14s technology is in general more reliable than that of the T-14. “The T-14′s transmission is not well-developed, as we saw through a malfunction taking place during a rehearsal before the May 9 parade,” a WeChat article, composed by Norinco, stated (The Diplomat reported on this incident. “By comparison, the VT-4 has never encountered such problems so far. Our tanks also have world-class fire-control systems, which the Russians are still trying to catch up with,” according to Norinco.

    Additionally the article emphasizes that the VT-4 is the economically more sensible choice: “Another important issue is the price – the T-14 is reported to have a price as high as that of the United States’ M1A2 Abrams.


    Oh please! Facts are that Armata has AESA radar, which makes it a node in a very complex battlefield structure, which unifies tactical link (platoon, company, battalion and brigade) to the informational grid and allows to make not only tactical but operational decisions.USSR/Russia always produced technology, in the fields that mattered, which was always on par or surpassed that of the nominal "West". Just look at the Air Defense, submarines, fighter aircraft and guided missiles. And then there is this "thingy" of Net Centric Warfare, which T-14 is part of.

    No need to go that far to rebuke Norinco, all you got to do is point out that it's the same company that needs to reverse-engineer everything to advance in technology....if only if Norinco executives could reverse-engineer themselves in to being higher lifeforms...preferably with vertebrae...Wink
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 06, 2015 2:06 am

    Reverse-engineering first you have to be even on that level in MIC capability and have the intellectual understanding and level to achieve that, most do not china does on a great scale and they do it like i said dozen times before to catch up not because they can't develope things of their own.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7252
    Points : 7546
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  sepheronx on Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:00 am

    Well, it must be great if Pakistan rejected it.

    Plain and simple fact is, they are afraid that what could have been a groeing demand for Chinese tanks may have gone bust due to Armata. Because Armata isnt just a tank but a whole series platform.

    Let us also add that it carries a more powerful engine and well, it is still prototype but didnt suffer engine failure like China's main mbt like the Type 96 did during exercises in Russia. Also, the transmission issue wasnt an issue if the vehicle still managed to move and was also proven to be an error of the driver.

    Also, no, it has less automation than Armata. Pure and simple, it has a unmanned turret while VT-4 does not. And they have no idea what fire control system is onboard armata. No one does besides the insiders.

    Norinco is crap. But even more crap in PR, cause they will need to try harder. Simple dirt flinging type PR usually associates with the fact that they are scared.

    Once Armata is actually out in force, then they will see how great VT-4 is. Which it isnt. But will still gain popularity in some poor countries.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4490
    Points : 4663
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:13 am

    Werewolf wrote:Reverse-engineering first you have to be even on that level in MIC capability and have the intellectual understanding and level to achieve that, most do not china does on a great scale and they do it like i said dozen times before to catch up not because they can't develope things of their own.

    I already know that, but I was pointing out that Norinco isn't innovating in anything (which makes the criticism ironic), just merely flinging feces like lower primates. How can they spew such nonsense with a straight face?

    sepheronx wrote:Well, it must be great if Pakistan rejected it.

    Plain and simple fact is, they are afraid that what could have been a groeing demand for Chinese tanks may have gone bust due to Armata.  Because Armata isnt just a tank but a whole series platform.

    Let us also add that it carries a more powerful engine and well, it is still prototype but didnt suffer engine failure like China's main mbt like the Type 96 did during exercises in Russia.  Also, the transmission issue wasnt an issue if the vehicle still managed to move and was also proven to be an error of the driver.

    Also, no, it has less automation than Armata.  Pure and simple, it has a unmanned turret while VT-4 does not.  And they have no idea what fire control system is onboard armata. No one does besides the insiders.

    Norinco is crap.  But even more crap in PR, cause they will need to try harder.  Simple dirt flinging type PR usually associates with the fact that they are scared.

    Once Armata is actually out in force, then they will see how great VT-4 is. Which it isnt.  But will still gain popularity in some poor countries.

    Talking about Armata's export potential is irrelevant, because it won't be exported for at least 5 years. I have no doubt that T-14 Armata is easily 5-times the tank VT-4 is, however the VT-4 'market-share' is a 'buy-in-bulk' tank, for poorer countries it's more important to get a much cheaper tank they can buy in large quantities, so for a country like Bolivia the VT-4 would be more viable option than a exported T-14 Armata...

    ...However with that said, the Rouble lowered value means that T-90A's can be built and bought at a advantageous price, btw T-90A is easily 3 times the tank the VT-4 is, it literally shits all over Norinco's 'monkey-grinder'... Razz
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    VT-4 (tank)

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 06, 2015 10:16 am

    sepheronx wrote:Well, it must be great if Pakistan rejected it.

    Plain and simple fact is, they are afraid that what could have been a groeing demand for Chinese tanks may have gone bust due to Armata.  Because Armata isnt just a tank but a whole series platform.

    Let us also add that it carries a more powerful engine and well, it is still prototype but didnt suffer engine failure like China's main mbt like the Type 96 did during exercises in Russia.  Also, the transmission issue wasnt an issue if the vehicle still managed to move and was also proven to be an error of the driver.

    Also, no, it has less automation than Armata.  Pure and simple, it has a unmanned turret while VT-4 does not.  And they have no idea what fire control system is onboard armata. No one does besides the insiders.

    Norinco is crap.  But even more crap in PR, cause they will need to try harder.  Simple dirt flinging type PR usually associates with the fact that they are scared.

    Once Armata is actually out in force, then they will see how great VT-4 is. Which it isnt.  But will still gain popularity in some poor countries.

    To call anyones MIC, which is world known even if not the best of the best, is usually used by biased people we usually would call fanboys to discredit someone. There a shitload of american fanboys who call everything russian "crap" or "junk".

    And this sinobashing because over a simple "journalistic" job which we know nothing about, since this could be just the world known modern journalism making claims to address quotese to people who never said those things or just exaggerated things to sound more fantastic. Anyone that gives interviews to known respected experts in their field is a good sign of amateurism of someone who either not directly involved with that jorunalism or the machines they talk about or both. I do not give two rat shits about what this journalist tries to sell us, not that MBT-3000 is magic nor does it is the opposite of a junk. Chinese tanks are also superior to any what NATO has shit out over its 2nd generation of tanks and Type-96A will wype the floor of any western Tank of same generation, even if it is just an upgrade. The chinese are not bound to export market, their companies are State owned or State subsidized to a degree no US MIC or Russian MIC is, they do not need to care about their export success. Their export success will see a real boom over one single year as soon they have reached parity with Russia and US and then they will not have anything to "copy" and have to focus in the doctrine of leading technology levels meaning invest in massive projects all across  technological field.

    Do not underestimate China all i say.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5537
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Militarov on Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:00 pm

    "The new Chinese Y-20 heavy-lifting transport plane will soon be delivered to buyers, a project manager said on Thursday. The manager expects that China will need at least 1,000 of the huge aircraft.

    “I can’t tell you the exact time planned for delivery, but … it will be carried out very soon,” Zhu Qian, head of Aviation Industry Corp of China’s Large Aircraft Development Office, said at a technology exhibition in Beijing.

    “More than 1,000 Y-20s will be needed,” he said, adding that the figure was calculated based on the experience of the United States and Russia. Both countries have used heavy-lifting transport aircraft for years. Zhu said the military and many civilian sectors will benefit greatly from delivery of the Y-20. The plane’s engines will initially be imported, but it is only a matter of time before the Y-20 is equipped with domestically developed engines, he said.

    China will also develop transport jets that are even larger than the Y-20 and comparable to the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy from the United States and the Antonov An-225 Mriya, designed in the former Soviet Union. Wang Ya’nan, deputy editor-in-chief of Aerospace Knowledge magazine, said prototypes of the Y-20 have completed all planned tests, and AVIC will begin mass-production. “Once the Y-20 joins the military, it will enable the Air Force to move closer to its goal of building a strategic air power,” he said.

    The Y-20, with a crew of three, made its maiden flight in January 2013, making China the third nation after the US and Russia capable of developing strategic transport aircraft. The plane has a maximum payload of 66 metric tons and a maximum takeoff weight of more than 200 tons, according to military sources. The high payload means it can carry the PLA’s heaviest tank, the 58-ton Type-99A2."


    According to a technical evaluation in Aerospace Knowledge, the Y-20 when fully fueled and carrying a payload of 51 tons can fly for 5,200 kilometers. This means it can reach everywhere in Europe and Asia, the US state of Alaska, Australia and North Africa. With its maximum payload, it has a range of 3,700 km, enabling it to fly nonstop from Harbin in Heilongjiang province to Lhasa in the Tibet autonomous region, the report said."

    Source: http://defence-blog.com/news/new-chinese-y-20-heavy-lifting-transport-plane-will-soon-be-delivered-to-buyers.html
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  George1 on Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:13 pm



    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1241
    Points : 1263
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:01 am

    Shocking level of development.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  George1 on Mon Nov 07, 2016 12:18 am

    Hannibal Barca wrote:Shocking level of development.

    Υes too advanced equipment!


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1338
    Points : 1338
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Nov 07, 2016 7:20 am

    Nice factory but nothing of the ordinary for a lot of plants producing such technology. But the building and surrounding area is very nice and pristine.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2008
    Points : 2028
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Nov 28, 2016 1:22 am

    Hong Kong customs officials seized 9 Terrex AV81 wheeled armored personnel carriers



    The nine Terrex AV81 wheeled armored personnel carriers was spotted in the Port of Hong Kong.According to shanghaiist.com, Hong Kong customs officials have seized at least 9 armored military vehicles that were on board a cargo ship from Taiwan that was bound for Singapore.

    A source told SCMP that this is likely one of the biggest seizures of strategic commodities in the two decades since Hong Kong was handed back over to China. The exact details of the shipment are still under investigation and it’s not clear why the cargo was unloaded in Hong Kong since that was not its final destination. The source said that it is possible it had been unloaded by mistake. Meanwhile, a Fact Wire report claims that customs officers were tipped off.

    http://defence-blog.com/army/hong-kong-customs-officials-seized-9-terrex-av81-wheeled-armored-personnel-carriers.html


    Looks like the PRC just bought off some key personel and snatched those APCs. Mind you the same manufacturer has been tasked by the USMC for development of the MPC. Some serious tech the Chinese got now, and so easily. unshaven
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  George1 on Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:46 pm

    Demonstration of new armored vehicles of the Chinese corporation Norinco at the training ground in Baotou

     A new show demonstration of export armored vehicles and anti-tank systems from the famous Chinese manufacturer - Norinco Corporation. Some machines are export versions of the PLA's existing technology, some are purely export models. Among other things, for the first time, a new Chinese export BMP VN17, a complex of active protection of armored vehicles GL5, etc. were demonstrated.

    The new heavy 30-ton BMP VN17 based on the light tank VT5 with a 30-mm automatic gun and ATGM of the new generation HJ-12.




    Actually a light tank VT5, behind it VT2B, and behind them tanks VT4, first the actual factory tank, and then a batch of tanks VT-4 built for Thailand.


    VT5




    VT4



    VT2B


    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2789491.html


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    Sponsored content

    Re: Chinese Defence Industry

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:52 pm